It seemed to me he proposal regarding referees' name being published, if imposed, will act as a disincentive to accept papers as the punishment for bad referee-ing in accepting seems to be greater than the reward, while there's nothing for rejecting.

Yes, I would think in both cases it should be left to the referee to decide whether or not he wants to be anonymous. You might have reasons also to remain anonymous if you are recommending a paper for publication. I would find it a good idea though if a final report was publicly available in either case. Best,